Unfortunately, because no news station or paper wants to cover this, the only place I could find it is a Political Action Group website, but I did find the full text of the bill now turned law.
The bill has been on the books, but has finally signed into law 16 years after the State Supreme Court ruled that the current sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional in Gryczan v Montana (1997). The bill was signed into law, and will take effect next Fiscal Year, October 1, 2013.
What does this mean? Montana has now legalized oral sex, anal sex, beastiality, penetration of the mouth, anus, or vagina with a marital aid, phallic shaped fruit or vegetable, rim jobs, et cetera.
How long til Montana allows homosexual marriages? No idea. If it took them 16 years to officially repeal the Sodomy/Deviant Sexual Acts Laws that were declared unconstitutional by the Montana State Supreme Court in 1997 and the United States Supreme Court in 2003, don't expect them to approve it over night, I'd guess it will take at least another 20 years.
I seriously doubt they 'legalized' bestiality/zoophillia - it's still very punishable under 'animal cruelty' laws, regardless of the animal's willingness to participate.
I seriously doubt they 'legalized' bestiality/zoophillia - it's still very punishable under 'animal
Section 4. Section 45-2-101, MCA, is amended to read: (21) "Deviate sexual relations" means sexual contact or sexual intercourse between two persons of the same sex or any form of sexual intercourse with an animal. [sic] "45-5-505. Deviate sexual conduct. (1) A person who knowingly engages in deviate sexual relations or who causes another to engage in deviate sexual relations commits the offense of deviate sexual conduct.
(2) A person convicted of the offense of deviate sexual conduct shall be imprisoned in the state prison for any term not to exceed 10 years or be fined an amount not to exceed $50,000, or both.
In brief: Still not legal to shag something other than human... though specifically 'extra terrestrial nonhumans' is not covered.
Section 4. Section 45-2-101, MCA, is amended to read: (21) "Deviate sexual relations" means se
The copy did not maintain the strike out of the following under deviate behavior: 'sexual contact or sexual intercourse between two persons of the same sex or' which is omitted by line in this proposal.
The copy did not maintain the strike out of the following under deviate behavior: 'sexual contact or
They are still lumping same sex in with deviant sexual conduct? I still think its fucking absurd the government thinks it has any business telling you who or how to fuck.
They are still lumping same sex in with deviant sexual conduct? I still think its fucking absurd the
In Gryczan v. Montana, the State Supreme Court struck down 45-5-505 MCA. This is from the court case: "Having concluded that § 45-5-505, MCA, constitutes a governmental intrusion into Respondents' right to privacy, guaranteed by Article II, Section 10 of Montana's Constitution, and finding no compelling state interest for such an intrusion, we hold that § 45-5-505, MCA, is unconstitutional as applied to Respondents and other consenting adults engaging in private, same-gender, non-commercial, sexual conduct, and we affirm the decision of the District Court."
The bill that was just passed affirms this. By saying that under 45-2-101. Deviate sexual relations means any form of sexual intercourse with an animal.
45-5-505. Deviate sexual conduct. (1) A person who knowingly engages in deviate sexual relations or who causes another to engage in deviate sexual relations commits the offense of deviate sexual conduct. (2) A person convicted of the offense of deviate sexual conduct shall be imprisoned in the state prison for any term not to exceed 10 years or be fined an amount not to exceed $50,000, or both.
In Gryczan v. Montana, the State Supreme Court struck down 45-5-505 MCA. This is from the court case
think this is more about pointing out the absurdities common in law particularily vice law, not so much a debate about the pros and cons of bestiality :)
think this is more about pointing out the absurdities common in law particularily vice law, not so m
